Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What do you even mean by this? If everyone pays a little bit then when you get seriously sick and can't afford the expensive treatments it doesn't matter because you have been contributing. Healthcare can't just be FREE, the money has to come from somewhere.

Well, in my eyes Obamacare is unconstitutional. Its more to do with freedom than anything really. You shouldn't be made to do anything. That why I think private healthcare is better. Everyone can choose what they want, ect ect. I'n my general stance, the more an individual gets the make a decision for him/herself, the better.

Thats ridiculous. Everyone pay for themselves seems like a good idea for everything but healthcare since its our ****ing lives that are on the line with that. Some treatments are too expensive for the average person to afford, why not have everyone pay a little bit so that when someone actually needs it they can get the proper care and not end up dead? This isn't something someone can abuse and get money out of like welfare. I can't even understand how people could be so selfish over like $50 dollars a month? Healthcare should not be a social status thing and making it private is exactly that.

Thats ridiculous. Everyone pay for themselves seems like a good idea for everything but healthcare since its our ****ing lives that are on the line with that. Some treatments are too expensive for the average person to afford, why not have everyone pay a little bit so that when someone actually needs it they can get the proper care and not end up dead? This isn't something someone can abuse and get money out of like welfare. I can't even understand how people could be so selfish over like $50 dollars a month? Healthcare should not be a social status thing and making it private is exactly that.

Thats ridiculous. Everyone pay for themselves seems like a good idea for everything but healthcare since its our ****ing lives that are on the line with that. Some treatments are too expensive for the average person to afford, why not have everyone pay a little bit so that when someone actually needs it they can get the proper care and not end up dead? This isn't something someone can abuse and get money out of like welfare. I can't even understand how people could be so selfish over like $50 dollars a month? Healthcare should not be a social status thing and making it private is exactly that.

Why not take your 50 and shop around for what you want instead of having the government tell you what you should be covered for? Thats what I'm saying. Its all about choices. When you have multiple choices you win.

Because my $50 on its own cannot cover me if I had a serious accident or illness. I'm not actually 100% sure how it even works down there, but the way it is in Canada works very well for every single person I know.

Because my $50 on its own cannot cover me if I had a serious accident or illness. I'm not actually 100% sure how it even works down there, but the way it is in Canada works very well for every single person I know.

That why you have to find ways to lower the costs. Competition is one way to lower costs.

I'd prefer if everyone had the same standards in healthcare, if I don't make a lot of money I don't wanna have to goto some ghetto doctor.... It's not shopping for a car or a house. There shouldn't be a competition in healthcare providers.

I'd prefer if everyone had the same standards in healthcare, if I don't make a lot of money I don't wanna have to goto some ghetto doctor.... It's not shopping for a car or a house. There shouldn't be a competition in healthcare providers.

Seems like a philosophical difference. Not saying you're wrong. I hope I dont come off as an ******* disputing it with you. But I strongly believe if a market for low income people who needs health insurance arises, there will be companies who will fill that void. I live in a country where our politicians can't agree what direction up is. I centainly dont want them debating on procedures and such for me.

Seems like a philosophical difference. Not saying you're wrong. I hope I dont come off as an ******* disputing it with you. But I strongly believe if a market for low income people who needs health insurance arises, there will be companies who will fill that void. I live in a country where our politicians can't agree what direction up is. I centainly dont want them debating on procedures and such for me.

I apologize for bumping in on your discussion, but, it is not a philosophical argument. In this case, there have been series of articles that have been written that show why market based solutions don't work in health care because this is not a symmetrical market. For markets to function, it requires symmetry of buyers and sellers.

Obviously in emergency situations, shopping or negotiating are not at issue. If you were unconscious, bleeding, etc. there is no negotiation nor the ability to shop.

Almost as obvious are lesser levels (broken leg, etc.) and a sick son or daughter, spouse, parent, etc. Although not life threatening, time and expertise rule out market based solutions.

The only place in medicine where market solutions have worked, has been in those very limited areas where time is of no issue and information is plentiful. An example of this would be lasik. However if you compare lasik to an attack of appendicitis it does not track.

If you think individuals can effectively shop for insurance, then let me tell you I teach professionals, and they readily admit, the contracts are so convoluted that they are nearly opaque. Now these are professionals. One cannot be an expert in every facet of life. If you are an expert in nuclear physics, it does not give you the ability to understand these contracts.

So while it can be argued that philosophically the market works in the long run, in medicine, it is not about the long run for the individual that needs care. Consequently, the market cannot be efficient.

The proof of all of this is a simple fact based reality. We pay twice as much per capita for health care than any western nation. You might think that our health care is better than any where else, but do you think it is twice as good?

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Well, in my eyes Obamacare is unconstitutional. Its more to do with freedom than anything really. You shouldn't be made to do anything. That why I think private healthcare is better. Everyone can choose what they want, ect ect. I'n my general stance, the more an individual gets the make a decision for him/herself, the better.

Are all taxes also unconstitutional in your view? Are speed limits also unconstitutional?

I apologize for bumping in on your discussion, but, it is not a philosophical argument. In this case, there have been series of articles that have been written that show why market based solutions don't work in health care because this is not a symmetrical market. For markets to function, it requires symmetry of buyers and sellers.

Obviously in emergency situations, shopping or negotiating are not at issue. If you were unconscious, bleeding, etc. there is no negotiation nor the ability to shop.

Almost as obvious are lesser levels (broken leg, etc.) and a sick son or daughter, spouse, parent, etc. Although not life threatening, time and expertise rule out market based solutions.

The only place in medicine where market solutions have worked, has been in those very limited areas where time is of no issue and information is plentiful. An example of this would be lasik. However if you compare lasik to an attack of appendicitis it does not track.

If you think individuals can effectively shop for insurance, then let me tell you I teach professionals, and they readily admit, the contracts are so convoluted that they are nearly opaque. Now these are professionals. One cannot be an expert in every facet of life. If you are an expert in nuclear physics, it does not give you the ability to understand these contracts.

So while it can be argued that philosophically the market works in the long run, in medicine, it is not about the long run for the individual that needs care. Consequently, the market cannot be efficient.

The proof of all of this is a simple fact based reality. We pay twice as much per capita for health care than any western nation. You might think that our health care is better than any where else, but do you think it is twice as good?

This is the biggest flaw in my argument, admittably. I dont know how to go about emergency issues, IE car crash with people on the brink of death. I dont view myself as a cold person, so I would never say "Just let them die".

With buying your own insurance, you can obviously work out Co pays, Deductibles, and whatever else you need. In emergency situations, those who bought insurance would be covered per say.

Now the problem does come when an emergency situation happens to someone who doesn't have insurance. Do you leave him if he doesn't have insurance on him presently? Do you take him in and treat him and hand him the bill? I really dont know.

Are all taxes also unconstitutional in your view? Are speed limits also unconstitutional?

All taxes? Not so much. Government should be there to perform task that the private sector cant. Examples of such are Roadwork and personal protection. Should there be a marriage tax? No. Tax to build on your own property? No. Tax to register your dog? No. Excessive speeding, Drinking and Driving, anything that can have a negative effect on someone else should be regulated. Prostitution? Weed? Seat belts? Wearing a helmet? That all should be a personal choice.

All taxes? Not so much. Government should be there to perform task that the private sector cant. Examples of such are Roadwork and personal protection. Should there be a marriage tax? No. Tax to build on your own property? No. Tax to register your dog? No. Excessive speeding, Drinking and Driving, anything that can have a negative effect on someone else should be regulated. Prostitution? Weed? Seat belts? Wearing a helmet? That all should be a personal choice.

To some degree, I agree with this.

That said, you do not have a right to drive, so you do not have an inherent right to drive without a seat belt or a helmet. There are a number of situations in which the government can take away your license, significantly fewer in which they can infringe on any of your actual Constitutional rights.